The Interceptor-X for N/A Cars
12-14-2005, 11:40 PM
#452
The Professor
Originally Posted by rotarygod
Why not be more realistic about real world gains? Not everyone uses expensive octane. If you get a few more horsepower, and I emphasize the word few, then you'll just be happy when you get more than you thought. That's fair. It also shows that low octane is fine. Someone name one solid reason why low octane is not safe for the engine. Don't cite the manual. I could care less what it says. Why is low octane harmful? Is it corrosive? Does it contain mad little trolls who score housings and glue injectors shut? Why is it bad? Also ignore tuning issues. I want actual reasons why the fuel itself is not good.
Low octane fuel is only harmful when you are trying to extract as much horsepower as possible from an engine, whether via forced induction or simply an aftermarket tunable ECU. Hmm...
12-14-2005, 11:41 PM
#453
U-Stink-But-I-♥-U
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 12 o'clock on the Beltway.
Posts: 2,004
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I was hoping for that number, yes. Or more specifically a 25 hp gain over a broad 3krpm range. I thought swoop's car was a good candidate for this for (what I assumed to be) his mods. What I think we see is a 10 hp gain over a broad area.
12-15-2005, 12:23 AM
#454
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Diamond Bar, Ca
Posts: 1,473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me it looks like there are only minimal gains for 3 - 4,000 rpm levels and the rest are complete gains.. That looks great to me! I still would love to see the HP-TQ-RPM-AFR chart though.. if you have it.. 
12-15-2005, 07:10 AM
#456
Follower of CHRIST!!!!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know enough about this type of stuff to really say much, but the chart looks pretty much the same for most of the range. I do see the higher top end but with the REVi and exhaust you really have to give them credit for at least 4HP so how much is the Interceptor NA really giving?
I'd love to see this run on a completely stock car...
It seems this type of stuff is alot of work and for that I thank you Scott. Also, thank you Swoope for helping us all out by sharing your 8 with Scott and all of us.
There is no doubt for Turbo the Interceptor is a must have and while Scott will appreciate the pat on the back as a businessman he wants buyers...sadly, for it's price I just could not bring myself to do it.
Can someone explain to me why it's so dang expensive? Why is EVERYTHING for the 8 so dang expensive. I mean...air intakes that produce 1-3HP at a cost of $300, exhaust give you 1HP and cost $700, “slightly” lighter rotor's cost $1,000, Mazdaspeed stuff...let me stop, I won't even go there.
Anyway, help me understand this, so the peak came to 22HP but the overall came to 10HP? That chart is pretty weird...the first time I see one with speed instead of rpm.
Anyway, that's just my morning rant about the "present" condition of the NA aftermarket...too much money for too little gain with not many options.
That's why I think I'll focus on cutting a bit of weight (and rotational weight {flywheel, rims, pullies} because I'll need all the help I can get to get my NA to high 13's.
Again...I'm probably talking too much "doom and gloom" but the high price for upgrading the rotary engine is a disappointment.
I understand it’s a unique engine and maybe it will take a longer time for the aftermarket to develop (more competition = better prices). Regardless I love my 8 as is, so overall this is just a minor complaint, the 8 is a great car already in my opinion but I think we all hope for a bit more power (in NA form at least cause Turbo’s are doing a fine job now a days)
I'd love to see this run on a completely stock car...
It seems this type of stuff is alot of work and for that I thank you Scott. Also, thank you Swoope for helping us all out by sharing your 8 with Scott and all of us.
There is no doubt for Turbo the Interceptor is a must have and while Scott will appreciate the pat on the back as a businessman he wants buyers...sadly, for it's price I just could not bring myself to do it.
Can someone explain to me why it's so dang expensive? Why is EVERYTHING for the 8 so dang expensive. I mean...air intakes that produce 1-3HP at a cost of $300, exhaust give you 1HP and cost $700, “slightly” lighter rotor's cost $1,000, Mazdaspeed stuff...let me stop, I won't even go there.
Anyway, help me understand this, so the peak came to 22HP but the overall came to 10HP? That chart is pretty weird...the first time I see one with speed instead of rpm.
Anyway, that's just my morning rant about the "present" condition of the NA aftermarket...too much money for too little gain with not many options.
That's why I think I'll focus on cutting a bit of weight (and rotational weight {flywheel, rims, pullies} because I'll need all the help I can get to get my NA to high 13's.
Again...I'm probably talking too much "doom and gloom" but the high price for upgrading the rotary engine is a disappointment.
I understand it’s a unique engine and maybe it will take a longer time for the aftermarket to develop (more competition = better prices). Regardless I love my 8 as is, so overall this is just a minor complaint, the 8 is a great car already in my opinion but I think we all hope for a bit more power (in NA form at least cause Turbo’s are doing a fine job now a days)
12-15-2005, 07:22 AM
#457
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Misinformation Director - Evolv Chicago
Posts: 3,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to further clarify, I think some basic principles should be identified. The one that most readily comes to mind is that torque will always equal horsepower at 5252rpm. Below is an excerpt from Paul Yaw regarding the subject and a link to the complete article:
http://www.yawpower.com/tqvshp.html
That’s still kind of ugly dealing with just a fraction of an rpm, so we divide both terms by .159 and we get: one horsepower equals 5252 lbs.-ft. of torque per 1 rpm.
This can be rewritten a few different ways that are valuable to us.
Horsepower equals torque times rpm divided by 5252. Horsepower = (Torque X RPM) / 5252
Torque equals horsepower times 5252 divided by rpm. Torque = (Horsepower X 5252) / RPM
RPM equals horsepower times 5252 divided by torque. RPM = (Horsepower X 5252) / Torque
If you know any two of the terms, you can calculate the third. You might also notice that torque and horsepower will always be equal at 5,252 rpm, horsepower will be greater than torque above 5252 RPM, and torque will be greater than horsepower below 5252 RPM. ALWAYS…NO EXCEPTION! Just look at any dyno sheet, and you will see what I mean. If you see a dyno sheet where this is not true, you can be sure that someone fudged the numbers to help sell a product.
Considering the torque of the Renesis, 159 though it is a very flat curve – thankfully - why should we expect large gains anywhere but above 5252rpm? Given the available torque that is the most hp we can get below the curve. This also very succinctly explains why the car explodes around 5500rpms.
http://www.yawpower.com/tqvshp.html
That’s still kind of ugly dealing with just a fraction of an rpm, so we divide both terms by .159 and we get: one horsepower equals 5252 lbs.-ft. of torque per 1 rpm.
This can be rewritten a few different ways that are valuable to us.
Horsepower equals torque times rpm divided by 5252. Horsepower = (Torque X RPM) / 5252
Torque equals horsepower times 5252 divided by rpm. Torque = (Horsepower X 5252) / RPM
RPM equals horsepower times 5252 divided by torque. RPM = (Horsepower X 5252) / Torque
If you know any two of the terms, you can calculate the third. You might also notice that torque and horsepower will always be equal at 5,252 rpm, horsepower will be greater than torque above 5252 RPM, and torque will be greater than horsepower below 5252 RPM. ALWAYS…NO EXCEPTION! Just look at any dyno sheet, and you will see what I mean. If you see a dyno sheet where this is not true, you can be sure that someone fudged the numbers to help sell a product.
Considering the torque of the Renesis, 159 though it is a very flat curve – thankfully - why should we expect large gains anywhere but above 5252rpm? Given the available torque that is the most hp we can get below the curve. This also very succinctly explains why the car explodes around 5500rpms.
12-15-2005, 07:27 AM
#458
U-Stink-But-I-♥-U
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 12 o'clock on the Beltway.
Posts: 2,004
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
After sleeping on this and reconsidering the graphs for some time, I have to say that these gains are considerable, just not magical. I have one question, does swoope's pre-afc curve look a lot like Polak's power curve? Little flat at the top? this was discussed in another thread, for which I am searching. Could that be a problem. Another question, why is swoope's car dynoing without the computer at nearly 200hp??
I am still not sold, but this is a pretty damn good mod.
I am still not sold, but this is a pretty damn good mod.
12-15-2005, 07:33 AM
#459
U-Stink-But-I-♥-U
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 12 o'clock on the Beltway.
Posts: 2,004
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Red Devil
why should we expect large gains anywhere but above 5252rpm? Given the available torque that is the most hp we can get below the curve. This also very succinctly explains why the car explodes around 5500rpms.
12-15-2005, 07:41 AM
#460
Momentum Keeps Me Going
Originally Posted by rotarygod
Why not be more realistic about real world gains? Not everyone uses expensive octane. If you get a few more horsepower, and I emphasize the word few, then you'll just be happy when you get more than you thought. That's fair. It also shows that low octane is fine. Someone name one solid reason why low octane is not safe for the engine. Don't cite the manual. I could care less what it says. Why is low octane harmful? Is it corrosive? Does it contain mad little trolls who score housings and glue injectors shut? Why is it bad? Also ignore tuning issues. I want actual reasons why the fuel itself is not good.
1st off - you don't just 'get' more HP w/93 or better octane, you tune for it. Tune for 87, put in 93+, get 87 power. That's a no brainer, you need to use the highest octane to advance the timing and keep from knocking. There's a knock sensor in our cars for a reason, I guess you just want to exercise it?
2nd 'Not everyone uses expensive octane'. Huh? I'm all for the minimalist approach to life... only do what is functional, save money for the important stuff, be frugal, etc., but You got a 30K$ car and you want to feed it 87 because ... why?
3rd - Mazda specs hi-octane fuel for our car. You sound angry that Mazda went from using 87 in older rotaries to higher octane in the 8...."Happy to see 87 octane being used" "Don't cite the manual. I could care less what it says." is pretty flipant and severe... so like I said huh? .. Mazda certainly wouldn't ask owners to buy a fuel at higher cost without benefit I'm fairly sure. Rather, I imagine the engineers would actually have to justify to the company to spec hi-octane for good reason.
4th "Why is low octane harmful?" No one has ever said 87 octane is 'bad' in its own right. It's an inanimate fluid for gosh sake, designed for the purpose for which it is made, a quality product without a doubt. But here in THIS thread... we ARE taking performance and tuning.. so "Also ignore tuning issues."...huh? Back on topic, please, help the thread reach a higher level.
Bottom line analogy... ask a jet pilot if he want jet fuel or 87 octane and I've got a nickel and a cup of coffee bet on which he'll take. You tell me why. I'd wager the same situation is in play here. Perhaps we can get another dyno run w/93+ tuning and make the factual comparison. I'm ready to atone for my "hi-octane" sins if better results aren't obtained.
My common sense says 'use the right tool for the job'. But as someone wise long ago once said, apparently common sense isn't all that common.
12-15-2005, 08:04 AM
#461
Riot Controller
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unfortunately high octane requirements are a symbol of power and quality to many stupid drivers. alot of cars require 91+ only because the manufacturer believes they can sell more cars (or the same number for a greater price) with that little sticker on there
i ran 87 octane on a long trip in my car last summer when the hurricanes came through. no problems whatsoever, and if you ask me it was much smoother. alot of guys on here stand by low(er) octance fuels.
i ran 87 octane on a long trip in my car last summer when the hurricanes came through. no problems whatsoever, and if you ask me it was much smoother. alot of guys on here stand by low(er) octance fuels.
12-15-2005, 09:15 AM
#462
Go Texas Longhorns!
The only reason we run high octane in our cars is the high STOCK ignition advance, which, Scott likely backed down to get his power.
Therefore, lower ignition advance = no need for premium fuel.
Why do we have high ignition advance stock? One word, Emissions. Thats why previous NA rotary's didn't run premium, emissions controls were loser 15-20 years ago. Turbo's are another story.
I don't know who many freaking times I have to say this, but if your not happy with these results from a power perspective, use it as a stepping stone to getting forced induction. Get the ECU, get some real tangible power gains, LEARN how to tune your car, and then add a turbo or SC kit. It not only spreads the cost out, but you'll have a better idea what the hell is going on.
Therefore, lower ignition advance = no need for premium fuel.
Why do we have high ignition advance stock? One word, Emissions. Thats why previous NA rotary's didn't run premium, emissions controls were loser 15-20 years ago. Turbo's are another story.
I don't know who many freaking times I have to say this, but if your not happy with these results from a power perspective, use it as a stepping stone to getting forced induction. Get the ECU, get some real tangible power gains, LEARN how to tune your car, and then add a turbo or SC kit. It not only spreads the cost out, but you'll have a better idea what the hell is going on.
12-15-2005, 09:30 AM
#463
Go Texas Longhorns!
Originally Posted by rx8wannahave
Anyway, help me understand this, so the peak came to 22HP but the overall came to 10HP? That chart is pretty weird...the first time I see one with speed instead of rpm.
this is why dyno charts are so important. peak power is where, stock, the engine produces the most power on the rpm band. In our case, its a tick before 8400rpm give or take a little.
at 8400rpm, Scott got a 10whp gain over the stock peak numbers.
What that doesn't show, the the massive gains below peak, where you see gains that are higher than 10whp. You could have a product that makes no peak gain but tons of power everywhere else.
I venture you don't drive much a peak, therefore, what most people want is the kind of gains he is showing, in the upper midrange.
12-15-2005, 09:35 AM
#464
Go Texas Longhorns!
Originally Posted by Spin9k
Dear ...god...you can't be serious...sounds like you are just frustrated or having a bad day ...but really you are not making too much sense above. And I do want to believe...but you make it difficult to see any reasoning behind your comments.
1st off - you don't just 'get' more HP w/93 or better octane, you tune for it. Tune for 87, put in 93+, get 87 power. That's a no brainer, you need to use the highest octane to advance the timing and keep from knocking. There's a knock sensor in our cars for a reason, I guess you just want to exercise it?
2nd 'Not everyone uses expensive octane'. Huh? I'm all for the minimalist approach to life... only do what is functional, save money for the important stuff, be frugal, etc., but You got a 30K$ car and you want to feed it 87 because ... why?
3rd - Mazda specs hi-octane fuel for our car. You sound angry that Mazda went from using 87 in older rotaries to higher octane in the 8...."Happy to see 87 octane being used" "Don't cite the manual. I could care less what it says." is pretty flipant and severe... so like I said huh? .. Mazda certainly wouldn't ask owners to buy a fuel at higher cost without benefit I'm fairly sure. Rather, I imagine the engineers would actually have to justify to the company to spec hi-octane for good reason.
4th "Why is low octane harmful?" No one has ever said 87 octane is 'bad' in its own right. It's an inanimate fluid for gosh sake, designed for the purpose for which it is made, a quality product without a doubt. But here in THIS thread... we ARE taking performance and tuning.. so "Also ignore tuning issues."...huh? Back on topic, please, help the thread reach a higher level.
Bottom line analogy... ask a jet pilot if he want jet fuel or 87 octane and I've got a nickel and a cup of coffee bet on which he'll take. You tell me why. I'd wager the same situation is in play here. Perhaps we can get another dyno run w/93+ tuning and make the factual comparison. I'm ready to atone for my "hi-octane" sins if better results aren't obtained.
My common sense says 'use the right tool for the job'. But as someone wise long ago once said, apparently common sense isn't all that common.
1st off - you don't just 'get' more HP w/93 or better octane, you tune for it. Tune for 87, put in 93+, get 87 power. That's a no brainer, you need to use the highest octane to advance the timing and keep from knocking. There's a knock sensor in our cars for a reason, I guess you just want to exercise it?
2nd 'Not everyone uses expensive octane'. Huh? I'm all for the minimalist approach to life... only do what is functional, save money for the important stuff, be frugal, etc., but You got a 30K$ car and you want to feed it 87 because ... why?
3rd - Mazda specs hi-octane fuel for our car. You sound angry that Mazda went from using 87 in older rotaries to higher octane in the 8...."Happy to see 87 octane being used" "Don't cite the manual. I could care less what it says." is pretty flipant and severe... so like I said huh? .. Mazda certainly wouldn't ask owners to buy a fuel at higher cost without benefit I'm fairly sure. Rather, I imagine the engineers would actually have to justify to the company to spec hi-octane for good reason.
4th "Why is low octane harmful?" No one has ever said 87 octane is 'bad' in its own right. It's an inanimate fluid for gosh sake, designed for the purpose for which it is made, a quality product without a doubt. But here in THIS thread... we ARE taking performance and tuning.. so "Also ignore tuning issues."...huh? Back on topic, please, help the thread reach a higher level.
Bottom line analogy... ask a jet pilot if he want jet fuel or 87 octane and I've got a nickel and a cup of coffee bet on which he'll take. You tell me why. I'd wager the same situation is in play here. Perhaps we can get another dyno run w/93+ tuning and make the factual comparison. I'm ready to atone for my "hi-octane" sins if better results aren't obtained.
My common sense says 'use the right tool for the job'. But as someone wise long ago once said, apparently common sense isn't all that common.
2nd - $30K, $40K, $100K, it doesn't matter how much the car costs, if you don't need it why use it.
3rd - Mazda engines say use 91 not for power, but for emissions, go look at previous NA rotary specs.
4th - Not sure your point here, see previous comments.
12-15-2005, 09:37 AM
#465
Registered
Originally Posted by Spin9k
Dear ...god...you can't be serious...sounds like you are just frustrated or having a bad day ...but really you are not making too much sense above. And I do want to believe...but you make it difficult to see any reasoning behind your comments.
1st off - you don't just 'get' more HP w/93 or better octane, you tune for it. Tune for 87, put in 93+, get 87 power. That's a no brainer, you need to use the highest octane to advance the timing and keep from knocking. There's a knock sensor in our cars for a reason, I guess you just want to exercise it?
2nd 'Not everyone uses expensive octane'. Huh? I'm all for the minimalist approach to life... only do what is functional, save money for the important stuff, be frugal, etc., but You got a 30K$ car and you want to feed it 87 because ... why?
3rd - Mazda specs hi-octane fuel for our car. You sound angry that Mazda went from using 87 in older rotaries to higher octane in the 8...."Happy to see 87 octane being used" "Don't cite the manual. I could care less what it says." is pretty flipant and severe... so like I said huh? .. Mazda certainly wouldn't ask owners to buy a fuel at higher cost without benefit I'm fairly sure. Rather, I imagine the engineers would actually have to justify to the company to spec hi-octane for good reason.
4th "Why is low octane harmful?" No one has ever said 87 octane is 'bad' in its own right. It's an inanimate fluid for gosh sake, designed for the purpose for which it is made, a quality product without a doubt. But here in THIS thread... we ARE taking performance and tuning.. so "Also ignore tuning issues."...huh? Back on topic, please, help the thread reach a higher level.
Bottom line analogy... ask a jet pilot if he want jet fuel or 87 octane and I've got a nickel and a cup of coffee bet on which he'll take. You tell me why. I'd wager the same situation is in play here. Perhaps we can get another dyno run w/93+ tuning and make the factual comparison. I'm ready to atone for my "hi-octane" sins if better results aren't obtained.
My common sense says 'use the right tool for the job'. But as someone wise long ago once said, apparently common sense isn't all that common.
1st off - you don't just 'get' more HP w/93 or better octane, you tune for it. Tune for 87, put in 93+, get 87 power. That's a no brainer, you need to use the highest octane to advance the timing and keep from knocking. There's a knock sensor in our cars for a reason, I guess you just want to exercise it?
2nd 'Not everyone uses expensive octane'. Huh? I'm all for the minimalist approach to life... only do what is functional, save money for the important stuff, be frugal, etc., but You got a 30K$ car and you want to feed it 87 because ... why?
3rd - Mazda specs hi-octane fuel for our car. You sound angry that Mazda went from using 87 in older rotaries to higher octane in the 8...."Happy to see 87 octane being used" "Don't cite the manual. I could care less what it says." is pretty flipant and severe... so like I said huh? .. Mazda certainly wouldn't ask owners to buy a fuel at higher cost without benefit I'm fairly sure. Rather, I imagine the engineers would actually have to justify to the company to spec hi-octane for good reason.
4th "Why is low octane harmful?" No one has ever said 87 octane is 'bad' in its own right. It's an inanimate fluid for gosh sake, designed for the purpose for which it is made, a quality product without a doubt. But here in THIS thread... we ARE taking performance and tuning.. so "Also ignore tuning issues."...huh? Back on topic, please, help the thread reach a higher level.
Bottom line analogy... ask a jet pilot if he want jet fuel or 87 octane and I've got a nickel and a cup of coffee bet on which he'll take. You tell me why. I'd wager the same situation is in play here. Perhaps we can get another dyno run w/93+ tuning and make the factual comparison. I'm ready to atone for my "hi-octane" sins if better results aren't obtained.
My common sense says 'use the right tool for the job'. But as someone wise long ago once said, apparently common sense isn't all that common.
So you are saying that because the manual states that "premium fuel is recommended" which does not say "required" that only higher octane should be used? I don't see where Mazda says not to use it but like has been said, due to emissions they will recommend a higher octane. Nothing wrong at all with the lower stuff. Rotaries have always loved it. It has nothing to do with what is better or not. I have never been one to claim that higher octane would give you more power. People assume it does which is why I stated high octane might give you more power. Again it depends on how the car is tuned. I know that. I have a standalone ecu that I tune myself. I completely understand. High octane isn't a better fuel. It's a different fuel. If I really cared about what the manual states, I wouldn't use any non-Mazda parts on the car as they don't give you permission to use anything else. That's ludicrous. The manual isn't gospel. It's a book of guidelines or general recommendations. There's a difference.
If you think common sense isn't that common anymore, don't worry, you'll find it yet when you learn how and why cars work they way they do.
Last edited by rotarygod; 12-15-2005 at 09:41 AM.
12-15-2005, 09:47 AM
#466
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We probably get somewhere between 1 and 5hp by using 91 octane and the timing not retarding. If were trying to get max power going with 87 is kinda dumb. If I can get 1-5hp by spending an extra $2(or less) on a tank of gas why not. It's not like those of us doing these things to our cars are using them as daily drivers anyway.
12-15-2005, 10:20 AM
#467
Administrator
the whole point of using the lowest octane he has available is that not everyone has the same highest octane available to them. so by using the low grade gas he shows the increases that EVERYONE should be able to make. if people switch to better gas and have better increases that just icing on top. if he showed you only the absolute best results and then half th people couldnt get them because they dont have 94 octane gas there would be a bunch of pissed off peopel claiming his **** dont work.
under promise and over produce- works for Scotty
under promise and over produce- works for Scotty
12-15-2005, 10:26 AM
#468
Administrator
Originally Posted by Spin9k
Bottom line analogy... ask a jet pilot if he want jet fuel or 87 octane and I've got a nickel and a cup of coffee bet on which he'll take. You tell me why.
12-15-2005, 10:26 AM
#469
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Santiago, Dominican Republic
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
another thing to consider is that with this you can tune the car to every mod you make, now we will see if a header and inatke and other mods can give better power
LET THE PORTING BEGIN !!!!!!!!
guitarjunky its going to love this
LET THE PORTING BEGIN !!!!!!!!
guitarjunky its going to love this
12-15-2005, 10:26 AM
#470
It would be nice to get a preloaded map for 91 octane when I place my order. That way, I have less tweaking to do for my mods.
But if not, then so be it. This looks to be in my future - just have to convince RP that his SC will be powered by my Int-X one day
But if not, then so be it. This looks to be in my future - just have to convince RP that his SC will be powered by my Int-X one day
12-15-2005, 10:53 AM
#472
Registered
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Sunny Florida
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this is great - the car with an extra 10~20hp, that is a 5 to 10% increase in power, will have a noticable difference in drivability. I really would love to see this done on a stock MT, and the graph in rpm's would be easier to understand (at least for me). If a stock 8 will see the same percentage increase, then count me in.
Thanks Scott!
Thanks Scott!
12-15-2005, 11:51 AM
#473
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Diamond Bar, Ca
Posts: 1,473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scott.. How about that chart? I really dont want to loose sight of that. For me.. It's easier to understand whats going on with the car with a hp-rpm style chart...
12-15-2005, 12:01 PM
#474
RX8 and a Truk....
Originally Posted by swiftnet
I think this is great - the car with an extra 10~20hp, that is a 5 to 10% increase in power, will have a noticable difference in drivability. I really would love to see this done on a stock MT, and the graph in rpm's would be easier to understand (at least for me). If a stock 8 will see the same percentage increase, then count me in.
Thanks Scott!
Thanks Scott!
Where do you see a 5-10% increase in power? After an email discussion with a close friend, he showed me how it's about 4rwhp, average over the entire rpm range, and averages about 11whp over the last 1/3 of the rpm range.
12-15-2005, 12:13 PM
#475
Follower of CHRIST!!!!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this is why dyno charts are so important..... I venture you don't drive much a peak, therefore, what most people want is the kind of gains he is showing, in the upper midrange.
I also understand that if you are getting a turbo in the future it's a good idea also, and heck even if you keep it NA it will allow you to gain the most possible power per mod.
All great and understood...
But I still think the bang for your buck factor is not really good with this product. I'm not saying for them to give it away free or for $500 but $1,000 would be a fair price for such a product considering it's potential to help each and every mod you add on to the car in the future...not to mention it finds another 10HP here and there.
We all have seen what it has done for Turbo's and I think we are lucky Scott came around, but I just can't convince myself to pay nearly 2K for an ECU. We will see in time where the aftermarket heads for the RX8...but right now I'm priced out of the joy it must be to make our 8 even better.
Ahhh, don't listen to me...I won't be modding the 8 for a good long time so I should just shut up about it.
ZIP!